Science under attack in Texas

[Red Dawn]

I still don't get it.

Evolution doesn't explain how life originated, only how the variations came to be, so it really has nothing to do with ID. Now if there was a science class on the "Origin of Life" (to which there are only theories as yet) then I could understand the complaint, but then again, teaching all creation myths would be ... well .. impossible.

well, some of them will quibble about the primordial ooze theory and the big bang, but I think the one thing that really sticks in the craw of fundamental creationists is human evolution. That man descended from common primate ancestors along with the modern great apes. That's in direct conflict with the whole garden of eden tale. This goes back to the scopes Monkey trial, and its still an issue for them today. I don't think any of them can credibly deny evolution more broadly, the fossil record and mitochondrial DNA evidence is overwhelming.

 

[KittenKoder]

I still don't get it.

Evolution doesn't explain how life originated, only how the variations came to be, so it really has nothing to do with ID. Now if there was a science class on the "Origin of Life" (to which there are only theories as yet) then I could understand the complaint, but then again, teaching all creation myths would be ... well .. impossible.

well, some of them will quibble about the primordial ooze theory and the big bang, but I think the one thing that really sticks in the craw of fundamental creationists is human evolution. That man descended from common primate ancestors along with the modern great apes. That's in direct conflict with the whole garden of eden tale. This goes back to the scopes Monkey trial, and its still an issue for them today. I don't think any of them can credibly deny evolution more broadly, the fossil record and mitochondrial DNA evidence is overwhelming.

One of the odd parts of this is that they use the "missing link" to oppose the theory, when the missing link they speak of actually occurs a few species before homo sapiens, they completely ignore the troglodyte links.

 

[Red Dawn]

I still don't get it.

Evolution doesn't explain how life originated, only how the variations came to be, so it really has nothing to do with ID. Now if there was a science class on the "Origin of Life" (to which there are only theories as yet) then I could understand the complaint, but then again, teaching all creation myths would be ... well .. impossible.

well, some of them will quibble about the primordial ooze theory and the big bang, but I think the one thing that really sticks in the craw of fundamental creationists is human evolution. That man descended from common primate ancestors along with the modern great apes. That's in direct conflict with the whole garden of eden tale. This goes back to the scopes Monkey trial, and its still an issue for them today. I don't think any of them can credibly deny evolution more broadly, the fossil record and mitochondrial DNA evidence is overwhelming.

One of the odd parts of this is that they use the "missing link" to oppose the theory, when the missing link they speak of actually occurs a few species before homo sapiens, they completely ignore the troglodyte links.

I think they must get that from rightwing blogs and creation science websites. I don't even think the term "missing link" is even a formal scientific word, and scientists avoid using it. I think the scientific literature has studies on transitional fossils or something like that, I'm not positive.

Look the amount of scientific illiteracy on this thread and the public more broadly is astonishing. I'm no expert in evolutionary biology, but there are people posting here who don't understand what a scientific law is. And they are confusing observation with interpretation. The fact is, people will read something on a blog or in the non-scientific popular press, and they will make up their mind. And become armchair experts. No matter how many times its explained to them what a scientific law is versus a scientific theory, they refuse to grasp it.

 

[Old Rocks]

well, some of them will quibble about the primordial ooze theory and the big bang, but I think the one thing that really sticks in the craw of fundamental creationists is human evolution. That man descended from common primate ancestors along with the modern great apes. That's in direct conflict with the whole garden of eden tale. This goes back to the scopes Monkey trial, and its still an issue for them today. I don't think any of them can credibly deny evolution more broadly, the fossil record and mitochondrial DNA evidence is overwhelming.

One of the odd parts of this is that they use the "missing link" to oppose the theory, when the missing link they speak of actually occurs a few species before homo sapiens, they completely ignore the troglodyte links.

I think they must get that from rightwing blogs and creation science websites. I don't even think the term "missing link" is even a formal scientific word, and scientists avoid using it. I think the scientific literature has studies on transitional fossils or something like that, I'm not positive.

Look the amount of scientific illiteracy on this thread and the public more broadly is astonishing. I'm no expert in evolutionary biology, but there are people posting here who don't understand what a scientific law is. And they are confusing observation with interpretation. The fact is, people will read something on a blog or in the non-scientific popular press, and they will make up their mind. And become armchair experts. No matter how many times its explained to them what a scientific law is versus a scientific theory, they refuse to grasp it.

Not only that, they simply cannot or will not, admit the enormous validation of the Theory of Evolution in the mapping of the genetic structures of the life on Earth.

 

[Immanuel]

So your contention is that creationism should be brought up in a science class, in the same context that meideval alchemy is in a chemistry class?

That's its a discredited relic of thought from the dark ages?


I don't think thats really what creation science backers want. I remember alchemy being mentioned in chemistry class, as a historical curiousity from the dark ages that was discredited in favor of modern science.

Is that how you want creationism discussed in a biology class, relative to evolution?

Nope, not my contention at all. Do you always try to put words in your opponents mouths so that you can claim victory?

First of all, I never said it should be brought up. Show me one post where I said that the teacher should bring up the issue. I said, that should it come up it should be discussed fairly. In other words, the teacher should acknowledge the point of discussion, answer the students questions and then explain why Creationism is not science.

I also stated quite clearly that what should be taught is the curriculum of the school board in question.

I have stated very clearly that should the question arise about Creationism that the teacher should explain why it is not scientific, that it is a belief that some people hold to explain how life began, but that it does not have a scientifically supportable basis for it. That seems pretty easy to deal with unless of course you are afraid of the topic.

I have made it very clear that when a student raises a question, any question, then it should be dealt with appropriately in class and not hidden from as if you are afraid to deal with the truth.

I wonder if you are one of those people that if you were a teacher and a student had the audacity to bring up Creationism in class, you would flunk him immediately.

Let's just say that the wedge document confirmed the existing goal of creationism/ID. Why do you think, when it became clear that creationism wasn't going to be accepted in public school science classes, that they retooled it to become Intellignt Design by removing the overt references to God??? It was nothing but an attempt to dress up religion to look like science to advance their selfish agenda. As they say, if you put a dress on a pig, it's still a pig. Now that ID was embarrassed on a national level at the Dover, PA trial, they are making more attempts to disguise their intent.

That is nothing but conjecture on your part and doesn't belong in a science class.

well, some of them will quibble about the primordial ooze theory and the big bang, but I think the one thing that really sticks in the craw of fundamental creationists is human evolution. That man descended from common primate ancestors along with the modern great apes. That's in direct conflict with the whole garden of eden tale. This goes back to the scopes Monkey trial, and its still an issue for them today. I don't think any of them can credibly deny evolution more broadly, the fossil record and mitochondrial DNA evidence is overwhelming.

So, now when someone disagrees with you they are quibbling?

It really doesn't seem like you want to discuss the issue. It appears more that you expect everyone to accept your point of view, no questions asked, shut up and be happy. You simply want to fall back and claim that anyone that disagrees with you and would have the audacity to question the "facts" you assert is just quibbling or is stupid and doesn't deserve to be heard. Not very scientific of you.

It might actually help if you had facts to back up your assertions about common ancestry. I'm glad you are willing to accept everything you are told without thinking about it, but, honestly, I am not.

I'm okay with you believing that you are descended from a chimp. That doesn't bother me one bit, I simply want some solid evidence before I accept your beliefs and "it is true because I say it is!!" simply is not solid evidence. I remain skeptical but open minded. It is too bad others do not.

Evolution does not assert to have the answers for how life began. Evolution asserts to answer the questions about how life develops.

I have stated very clearly in this thread that I believe that parts of the evolutionary theory are correct. I have very clearly stated that although I do not believe the common ancestry theory, I do believe that species adapt and change over time in order to survive. I simply am not convinced that two apes became human beings at the same time and thus started a new form of life or that all life started somewhere back in history as a single cell animal that just happened to come to life because a bolt of lighting hit the puddle it was in zapping it to life. That after billions upon billions of years from that particularly extremely lucky lighting strike we have life as we know it today right down to the astronomical number of kinds of cells that it takes to sustain life in the complex form it exists.

I'm sorry, if you can't seem to deal with the fact that some people simply don't find that assertion to be acceptable.

I have never claimed that the common ancestry theory is false. You see not believing a scientific assertion... and that is all "common ancestry" is... an assertion as there is no proof of the primordial ooze... does not mean that one believes it is false. It simply means that I have not been convinced and am awaiting further proof.

I have not once stated that it should not be taught at all. I have only claimed that as far as I am concerned it has not been proven. I have simply left the door open for further findings.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I'm afraid I still don't see dogmatic as an appropriate description. When I first read the phrase "dogmatic statement" I thought you were implying that I was dogmatic in my acceptance of evolution but you have clarified that you were instead indicating that I was being dogmatic in my assertions. I referred to having things handed down from authority, but in my mind doctrines are a type of authoritative statement that adherents must accept, and srolling down the dictionary.com site you referenced reveals three more definitions with include the idea of authoritative assertion of information.

Merriam-Webster and several other sites (allwords.com, yourdictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com) all had definitions very similar; the unifying element being assertion without proof, as characterized in definition 1.

In any case, I hope our understanding of dogmatic statements is in general agreement. But I fail to see how you can earnestly characterize my statements as dogmatic when I have offered information and explanations about my position as well as links to information with lots of evidence and information. If I was asserting the position dogmatically, then what is the purpose of all of these explanations and information? Rather than asserting you simply accept evolution, I feel I have done a great deal of work to provide you with good reasons to accept evolution, offered to explain or try to answer questions, and encouraged you to go to sites and consider the evidence in reaching your conclusion. A dogmatic assertion, I believe, would be one that asserts that because science accepts evolution as true you should unquestioningly accept it as true without any proof. If you do question evolution, and supporters of the theory are willing to provide you with evidence and explain their reasons, then their actions demonstrate this is not the case.

I'm afraid I can not think of any other word, at the moment, besides dogmatic.

You seem to assert that what you believe is true is true and that there is no room for discussion. That is dogmatic in my understanding. It would be like me saying that you had to be baptized by full immersion or you were going to hell because Jesus says to baptize all nations. Rather, you are saying believe "common ancestry" because I believe all these "facts" presented by scientists.

Sure, you might throw out tons of "documentation" backing up your beliefs, but the fact remains, that I am unwilling to take a scientist's word for it until he can show me how whales become dogs or monkeys become humans. Simply saying that it happens is not sufficient for me.

I understand that there is a lot of evidence supporting your beliefs. Yet, evidence does not always lead to the truth. Wasn't it you that earlier in this thread had an example of a murder where the evidence pointed to a husband murdering his wife? Every bit of evidence might lead the investigators to believe that the husband murdered his wife, but the truth could be that the husband was innocent and the lover killed her and framed the husband.

Evidence is not proof.

Proof is a video tape of the husband killing his wife. Proof is a confession. Proof is an eye witness who's testimony cannot be impeached. Proof is something that scientist have not found in regards to this matter.

Scientists may have very good reasons for standing by this theory. They have every right to say that the preponderance of the evidence points us in this direction, but that is not proof.

You, Red Dawn and YWN666 may believe that the chances of something else being true may be astronomical and thus it must be true, but I don't see it that way. My belief is that science in on the right track, but that if we ever do find the answers it won't be as science has conjectured to date.

Immie

 

[Yukon]

This is a step back to the dark ages. Texas is turning into a fundamentalist Christian state much the same as fundamentalist Islam. This is dangerous and if you condone it you are a fool.

 

[elvis]

This is a step back to the dark ages. Texas is turning into a fundamentalist Christian state much the same as fundamentalist Islam. This is dangerous and if you condone it you are a fool.

go play with your Che Guevara blowup doll.

 

[Old Rocks]

Texas is special

“If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas”
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas schoolchildren” is allegedly the quotation of “Ma” ( or “Pa") Ferguson, at a time when Spanish was being taught in the schools. Jesus knew no English (which was not yet invented), but similar phrases involving St. Paul date to nineteenth century America.


The Burkle Center for International Relations :: Talking Peace
Before I talk about promoting peace, I will tell a story that illustrates a basic cause of conflict. There was a hot argument in Texas in the 1920s—one that is still going on in several states, particularly in California—about whether Spanish should be used in the classroom to teach kids who came from Mexico, or whether only English should be permitted. Miriam “Ma” Ferguson had become the state’s first woman governor, after her husband, Governor “Pa” Ferguson was impeached. She ended the debate quite quickly when she held up a Bible and proclaimed, “If the King’s English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for the children of Texas!”


Miriam A. Ferguson - Wikiquote
Miriam Amanda “Ma” Ferguson (June 13, 1875–June 25, 1961) became the first female Governor of Texas in 1924, and the second female state governor in the United States.

If the King’s English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for the children of Texas!
Attributed, for example, by [1]
Claimed to be said as she was holding a bible, about her reason for objecting to the teaching of Spanish in schools.
Texas, The Lone Star State: “If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas”

 

[Old Rocks]

Immanuel;
I have stated very clearly in this thread that I believe that parts of the evolutionary theory are correct. I have very clearly stated that although I do not believe the common ancestry theory, I do believe that species adapt and change over time in order to survive. I simply am not convinced that two apes became human beings at the same time and thus started a new form of life or that all life started somewhere back in history as a single cell animal that just happened to come to life because a bolt of lighting hit the puddle it was in zapping it to life. That after billions upon billions of years from that particularly extremely lucky lighting strike we have life as we know it today right down to the astronomical number of kinds of cells that it takes to sustain life in the complex form it exists.
......................................................................

You demonstrate an immense ignorance concerning how evolution works. Perhaps if you did some research you have a better appreciation of the evidence.

Natural Selection: How Evolution Works (ActionBioscience)

 

[elvis]

Texas is special

“If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas”
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas schoolchildren” is allegedly the quotation of “Ma” ( or “Pa") Ferguson, at a time when Spanish was being taught in the schools. Jesus knew no English (which was not yet invented), but similar phrases involving St. Paul date to nineteenth century America.


The Burkle Center for International Relations :: Talking Peace
Before I talk about promoting peace, I will tell a story that illustrates a basic cause of conflict. There was a hot argument in Texas in the 1920s—one that is still going on in several states, particularly in California—about whether Spanish should be used in the classroom to teach kids who came from Mexico, or whether only English should be permitted. Miriam “Ma” Ferguson had become the state’s first woman governor, after her husband, Governor “Pa” Ferguson was impeached. She ended the debate quite quickly when she held up a Bible and proclaimed, “If the King’s English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for the children of Texas!”


Miriam A. Ferguson - Wikiquote
Miriam Amanda “Ma” Ferguson (June 13, 1875–June 25, 1961) became the first female Governor of Texas in 1924, and the second female state governor in the United States.

If the King’s English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for the children of Texas!
Attributed, for example, by [1]
Claimed to be said as she was holding a bible, about her reason for objecting to the teaching of Spanish in schools.
Texas, The Lone Star State: “If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas”

fuck off, asshole.

 

[BrianH]

My question is...If the "big bang" created the universe we live in, what/who created the thing that "banged"

 

[Immanuel]

Immanuel;
I have stated very clearly in this thread that I believe that parts of the evolutionary theory are correct. I have very clearly stated that although I do not believe the common ancestry theory, I do believe that species adapt and change over time in order to survive. I simply am not convinced that two apes became human beings at the same time and thus started a new form of life or that all life started somewhere back in history as a single cell animal that just happened to come to life because a bolt of lighting hit the puddle it was in zapping it to life. That after billions upon billions of years from that particularly extremely lucky lighting strike we have life as we know it today right down to the astronomical number of kinds of cells that it takes to sustain life in the complex form it exists.
......................................................................

You demonstrate an immense ignorance concerning how evolution works. Perhaps if you did some research you have a better appreciation of the evidence.

Natural Selection: How Evolution Works (ActionBioscience)

What a crock of shit, Old man.

A great deal of evolution by natural selection can happen without the formation of new species. Natural selection is only the process of adaptation within species, and we see many examples of that. Under some circumstances natural selection does play a role in the origin of new species, by which I mean a splitting of one species lineage into two different lineages that do not interbreed with one another — for example, the splitting of one ancestral primate lineage into one that became today’s chimpanzee and the other that became the hominid line resulting in our own species. The process of splitting and becoming reproductively isolated, that is, incapable of breeding with one another, can often involve natural selection but perhaps not always.

Pure speculation on his part. There is no proof that this happens, yet you call me ignorant for asking for proof?

There are so many examples of that! One example is the apple maggot fly. About 100 years ago it started to become a serious pest of apple orchards in New England and New York State. It’s now a threat throughout most of northern United States. It originally fed just on hawthorn fruits, but then it adapted to apple and it’s become a serious threat to the industry. That is a genetic change propagated by natural selection.

Perhaps much more crucial is an issue that agriculture has to deal with all the time: the evolution in hundreds of species of insects of resistance to various chemical insecticides. The insects then become more and more difficult to control.

Closer to home, and more serious, is the single greatest crisis in medicine: antibiotic resistance. The fact is that enormous numbers of the most dangerous bacteria and viruses have evolved to be resistant to the antibiotics or other drugs that used to be effective against them. An obvious example is the HIV virus, which, as we know, is capable of rapidly evolving resistance to drugs that once were effective against it.

Nothing in here discusses the changing from one species to another. Nothing! The Apple Maggot Fly adapted to its environment. It did not become a bee or any other species.

The late Stephen Jay Gould has written that if we were to rewind the “tape” of evolutionary history and play it again, the results would not be the same [S.J.Gould, Wonderful Life, 1989]. Why?

Futuyma: Well, it almost certainly would not be the same. I don’t think anyone can say how different it would be, whether it would be along the same general lines or utterly, unimaginably different.

Of course, it wouldn’t be the same, because first of all, random processes are involved in the evolutionary process. For example, the origin of new mutations: a lot of evolution is dependent on particular mutational changes in genes that were very, very rare or unlikely, but that just happened at the right time, in the right species, in the right environment, but it need not happen that way. So, there’s this unpredictability.

In addition, the particular sequence of environmental changes that the Earth underwent and that organisms were exposed to over billions of years has left a long-term imprint on species as they are today. If the sequence of environmental changes were different, you would have a different evolutionary history, leading to entirely different organisms over time.

This I can agree with. Things would not be the same because adaptation is random. No where in this thread have I denied that Natural Selection happens except for in terms of changing species of which there simply is not ANY proof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand a lot more than you think, Old Rocks. I have not disputed most of what your friend Dr. Futuyma has said. The issue that we have been discussing is whether or not Abiogenesis is an accurate representation of how life started. None of the evidence you purport to have presented in this link convinces me that life began as a single cell billion upon billions of years ago. Nothing!

I have already stated several times in this thread alone that I agree with and understand the Natural Selection (adaptation) of species, but you have not shown a damned thing to indicate that we all started out as a single celled organism and have adapted to life as we know it.

I don't see anything in this link that you seem to think will shed the light, that I did not already know O.R. or that I have not discussed in this thread. Perhaps you did not read the thread?

Your link has done nothing to prove that a whale can become a dog or a chimp can become a human or a fly can become a bee and that is what we have been discussing here. Not whether or not a fly can adapt to eating different fruits over time.

I welcome your entrance into this thread, O.R. but I would prefer you behave like an adult and not call me ignorant simply because I don't accept the so called proof that has been presented.

edit:

And I love this quote from your earlier post:

“If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas”
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texas schoolchildren”

Thank you for the laugh. I honestly can't believe anyone would say something like that, but I'm sure someone did.

Immie

 

[JohnStOnge]

[ But the core of modern physics is based on the idea that nothing is absolutely certain.l

Then the core of modern physics has a problem and physcisists need to work it out. There are things that are certain. If you step off of the top of a 10 story building on Earth, you are going to fall to the ground. It's ridiculous to believe otherwise. It's ridiculous to believe that there is any chance that you won't unless you have some mechanical device to prevent you from doing so.

 

[KittenKoder]

This is a step back to the dark ages. Texas is turning into a fundamentalist Christian state much the same as fundamentalist Islam. This is dangerous and if you condone it you are a fool.

Coming from someone who is anti-every-choice-but-their-own ... you don't help the cause of science much.

 

[KittenKoder]

[ But the core of modern physics is based on the idea that nothing is absolutely certain.l

Then the core of modern physics has a problem and physcisists need to work it out. There are things that are certain. If you step off of the top of a 10 story building on Earth, you are going to fall to the ground. It's ridiculous to believe otherwise. It's ridiculous to believe that there is any chance that you won't unless you have some mechanical device to prevent you from doing so.

Actually no .. it is never a certainty, physics just proves that through mathematics.

We'll take your example, jumping off a 10 story building. Now, this has actually happened and many have survived, not all with parachutes or other such devices. We'll exclude those and even the bungee jumpers just for devil's advocate.

Now, other factors that can influence the chances of you actually dying (to be specific) are wind speed and direction, this can play a huge role and is largely unpredictable, especially near a large structure, without massive amounts of mathematics (even then the results are chances not certainties). Then possible obstructions that can pass below you, these outside variables are unpredictable, there isn't even a chaos theory that could come close to predicting all possible obstructions which could slow or even stop the descent. The final probability is that of the landing point, which is rarely anywhere near where you expect it to be due to other factors (especially wind speed and direction). Landing in water is about the same as concrete, unless you land just right, which even if you resist there is always a small chance that you could. There is however a high chance of survival if you land in brush, or any large amount of plant life, so long as nothing passes through you like a spear. So no, even that example is not close to 100%, more like 90% chance of death.

Science doesn't deal with certainties, it deals with "more than likely's" and records. Only the past is a sure thing, one which we only have to study and explore.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Actually no .. it is never a certainty, physics just proves that through mathematics.

We'll take your example, jumping off a 10 story building. Now, this has actually happened and many have survived, not all with parachutes or other such devices. We'll exclude those and even the bungee jumpers just for devil's advocate.

Now, other factors that can influence the chances of you actually dying (to be specific) are wind speed and direction, this can play a huge role and is largely unpredictable, especially near a large structure, without massive amounts of mathematics (even then the results are chances not certainties). Then possible obstructions that can pass below you, these outside variables are unpredictable, there isn't even a chaos theory that could come close to predicting all possible obstructions which could slow or even stop the descent. The final probability is that of the landing point, which is rarely anywhere near where you expect it to be due to other factors (especially wind speed and direction). Landing in water is about the same as concrete, unless you land just right, which even if you resist there is always a small chance that you could. There is however a high chance of survival if you land in brush, or any large amount of plant life, so long as nothing passes through you like a spear. So no, even that example is not close to 100%, more like 90% chance of death.

Science doesn't deal with certainties, it deals with "more than likely's" and records. Only the past is a sure thing, one which we only have to study and explore.

Good GRIEF Kitten. I didn't say anything about surviving. I said you will fall. And you will that is 100% certain. Let me know when you come up with an example of someone who stepped off of a 10 story building and didn't fall without some mechanical device preventing them from doing so.

I just hope those who are "neutral" are noticing how ridiculous the counter arguments are getting.

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually no .. it is never a certainty, physics just proves that through mathematics.

We'll take your example, jumping off a 10 story building. Now, this has actually happened and many have survived, not all with parachutes or other such devices. We'll exclude those and even the bungee jumpers just for devil's advocate.

Now, other factors that can influence the chances of you actually dying (to be specific) are wind speed and direction, this can play a huge role and is largely unpredictable, especially near a large structure, without massive amounts of mathematics (even then the results are chances not certainties). Then possible obstructions that can pass below you, these outside variables are unpredictable, there isn't even a chaos theory that could come close to predicting all possible obstructions which could slow or even stop the descent. The final probability is that of the landing point, which is rarely anywhere near where you expect it to be due to other factors (especially wind speed and direction). Landing in water is about the same as concrete, unless you land just right, which even if you resist there is always a small chance that you could. There is however a high chance of survival if you land in brush, or any large amount of plant life, so long as nothing passes through you like a spear. So no, even that example is not close to 100%, more like 90% chance of death.

Science doesn't deal with certainties, it deals with "more than likely's" and records. Only the past is a sure thing, one which we only have to study and explore.

Good GRIEF Kitten. I didn't say anything about surviving. I said you will fall. And you will that is 100% certain. Let me know when you come up with an example of someone who stepped off of a 10 story building and didn't fall without some mechanical device preventing them from doing so.

I just hope those who are "neutral" are noticing how ridiculous the counter arguments are getting.

I addressed this already, reread the whole thing. It is NOT 100% certain you would fall.

 

[Red Dawn]

[ But the core of modern physics is based on the idea that nothing is absolutely certain.l

Then the core of modern physics has a problem and physcisists need to work it out. There are things that are certain. If you step off of the top of a 10 story building on Earth, you are going to fall to the ground. It's ridiculous to believe otherwise. It's ridiculous to believe that there is any chance that you won't unless you have some mechanical device to prevent you from doing so.

You've been told one thousand times that you are confusing observation with interpretation. I can only figure you are being either willfully obtuse, or flat out dishonest.

Falling off a building is an observational phenomena. It does nothing to explain WHY things fall to the ground. That's the realm of gravitational theory. The modren consensus is that mass causes a warping of space-time, resulting in gravitational forces. But, no one is 100% rock solid certain if that's correct. We have equations that describe the acceleration due to gravity. We can observe the effects of gravity. But, why gravity exists and why exactly it does what it does, is 100% theoretical physics.

you continue to confuse oberservation with interpretation. Your lesson is over. I really hope you don't continue to do this.

 

[YWN666]

I still don't get it.

Evolution doesn't explain how life originated, only how the variations came to be, so it really has nothing to do with ID. Now if there was a science class on the "Origin of Life" (to which there are only theories as yet) then I could understand the complaint, but then again, teaching all creation myths would be ... well .. impossible.

well, some of them will quibble about the primordial ooze theory and the big bang, but I think the one thing that really sticks in the craw of fundamental creationists is human evolution. That man descended from common primate ancestors along with the modern great apes. That's in direct conflict with the whole garden of eden tale. This goes back to the scopes Monkey trial, and its still an issue for them today. I don't think any of them can credibly deny evolution more broadly, the fossil record and mitochondrial DNA evidence is overwhelming.

I just watched Inherit The Wind on TV last night. Excellent movie.